|
[ Cowfree ] TOP FOREST SERVICE BIOLOGIST BLASTS AGENCY MISMANAGEMENT- CALLS FOR DISMISAL OF KEY LEADERS, END TO LIVESTOCK GRAZING IN SOUTHWEST, SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF DAMAGE TO WATERSHEDS AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Reprinted by permission of The
Southwest Center for Biological Diversity In a 2-23-98 letter to the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service, the former head of Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species for the Southwest Region blasted the Forest Service for damaging watersheds, subsidizing unsustainable grazing and logging, censoring critical reports, and abusing dissenting biologists. Leon Fager, a 31 year Forest Service veteran, called for the:
-resignation of Jim Lloyd, Regional Director of Wildlife, Fish and Rare
Plants, Exerpts from the Fager letter: "In December, 1997, I retired from the U.S. Forest Service, ending a 31 year career with an agency I once loved. In my 31 years, I served as a wildlife biologist on the Apache-Sitgreaves and Black Hills National Forests and Regional Fisheries Biologist for the Rocky Mountain Region. Before retiring, I served as Program Manager for the Southwestern Region's Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Program. I chose early retirement last December because of my growing concerns and frustrations with the Southwestern Region. I could no longer stand by to watch inept leadership take its toll on good employees, natural resources, and public confidence. I would like to share some of my experiences, hopefully giving you insight into why the Southwestern Region has spawned an unprecedented amount of environmental litigation, an angry public, and severely degrading natural resources..." "Millions of taxpayer dollars are beginning to flow to the Southwest to deal with the undeniable overgrazing problem. I fear the money will be diverted to assure that unsustainable grazing continues at public expense, instead of implementing cost effective, ecologically sound solutions. If there is not a change in leadership personel and leadership philosophy, this will surely happen..." "The impact, past and present, of livestock grazing on Southwestern National Forests is the major reason that ecosystems are deteriorating, species are near extinction and watersheds have lost much of their ability to yield high quality and quantities of water..." "Fundamentally, the role of biologists in this Region is to support the timber and grazing programs. They have little opportunity to design and implement projects to recover listed and sensitive species. The main reason so much energy and money is spent on endangered species now, is that the Region has been sued numerous times, with more litigation on the way, for its failure to follow the law and protect sensitive species and watersheds. Rather than seeing lawsuits as a sign that something is wrong with management, Forest Service leaders tend to view them as attacks on core programs- timber and range. The Region is now "circling the wagons" and spending millions of taxpayer dollars to defend a livestock grazing program that has outlived its value and needs to be phased out as an inappropriate use of National Forests in the 21st century...."
"We have a leadership team which is not accountable for the conservation
of public resources, including taxpayers dollars. They do not have a passion
for the restoration of degraded ecosystems. They hinder rather than support
good biologists. I know of many biologists and one deputy forest supervisor
who were forced to leave the Forest Service, transfer, or resign because
they spoke out on resource and leadership issues. I know of a Southwest Fisheries
Biologist that is barred from working on some Forests and Regional Task Groups
because he criticized the Regions leadership in regards to riparian degradation.
I will be glad to furnish their names, if you would like. The point, is that
transferring millions of dollars to fix the grazing program, establishing
new management teams, etc. will not solve root problems as long a management
continues to be more committed to logging and grazing that protecting species
and watersheds."
February 23, 1998
Mike Dombeck Dear Mr. Dombeck, In December, 1997, I retired from the U.S. Forest Service, ending a 31 year career with an agency I once loved. In my 31 years, I served as a wildlife biologist on the Apache-Sitgreaves and Black Hills National Forests and Regional Fisheries Biologist for the Rocky Mountain Region. Before retiring, I served as Program Manager for the Southwestern Region's Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Program. I chose early retirement last December because of my growing concerns and frustrations with the Southwestern Region. I could no longer stand by to watch inept leadership take its toll on good employees, natural resources, and public confidence. I would like to share some of my experiences, hopefully giving you insight into why the Southwestern Region has spawned an unprecedented amount of environmental litigation, an angry public, and severely degrading natural resources. It is my hope that the Region can yet be turned around. I will keep my comments on resource damage brief, because it is already well established that National Forest ecosystems, particularly stream channels and riparian areas, are in dismal condition due to overgrazing and poorly placed roads. I address leadership problems at greater length, because they are the ultimate cause of watershed deterioration. Millions of taxpayer dollars are beginning to flow to the Southwest to deal with the undeniable overgrazing problem. I fear the money will be diverted to assure that unsustainable grazing continues at public expense, instead of implementing cost effective, ecologically sound solutions. If there is not a change in leadership personel and leadership philosophy, this will surely happen. The impact, past and present, of livestock grazing on Southwestern National Forests is the major reason that ecosystems are deteriorating, species are near extinction and watersheds have lost much of their ability to yield high quality and quantities of water. The damage done by livestock is especially apparent on the Region's riparian ecosystems. Riparian areas make up less than 1% of the National Forest's vegetation types yet support the majority of the Regions' rare animal, fish and plant species, as well as water and recreation opportunities. Biologists, over the years, have voiced concerns that livestock are unduly impacting riparian systems in the Southwest. Their concerns have been generally ignored by line officers. Witness, for example, Aldo Leopold's warnings from the 1930's, the 1986 Regional Guide, the 1991 Watershed Assessment, and the 1997 briefing by the Regional fish team. Though disappointing, it is no surprise, most of the line officers were trained in a tradition of timber and range emphasis. They maintain the same mentality today. The Southwestern Region, over the years, has nurtured a strong and politically effective relationship with the timber and livestock industries. Budgets and targets reflect an entrenched Regional belief that timber and range are the primary products and core values. Wildlife, fish, plants, threatened species, water, and recreation have been relegated to secondary considerations. They are viewed as constraints on the timber and range programs rather than values in their own right. The publics that support the wildlife, fish and rare plant programs are expressly called "the enemy" by some in leadership positions- including the current Director of Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plants! Fundamentally, the role of biologists in this Region is to support the timber and grazing programs. They have little opportunity to design and implement projects to recover listed and sensitive species. The main reason so much energy and money is spent on endangered species now, is that the Region has been sued numerous times, with more litigation on the way, for its failure to follow the law and protect sensitive species and watersheds. Rather than seeing lawsuits as a sign that something is wrong with management, Forest Service leaders tend to view them as attacks on core programs- timber and range. The Region is now "circling the wagons" and spending millions of taxpayer dollars to defend a livestock grazing program that has outlived its value and needs to be phased out as an inappropriate use of National Forests in the 21st century. The human population is rapidly growing in Arizona and New Mexico. As this public becomes increasingly aware of the values of fish, wildlife, rare species, clean water and recreation, they are demanding protection, recovery and restoration of damaged watersheds. This is at odds with the Forest Service's "grazing at all costs" policy. Many biologists and managers within the agency believe current leadership in the Southwest is incapable of making hard decisions to meet changing public demands and legal requirements. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has been very alarmed and outspoken about the degraded condition of the state's riparian areas due to livestock grazing. One such individual was a Regional Supervisor for the Department in Pinetop, Arizona. He was one of the finest biologists I have ever known, his reputation among his peers for his technical abilities, integrity, and leadership was beyond question. He suffered grave personal consequences for challenging Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest leadership over the impacts of livestock grazing, and failure to follow through on agreements. He was dismissed as Regional Supervisor. This same Forest Supervisor has been the target on numerous complaints by state and federal agencies and environmental groups such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Federation for North American Wild Sheep, The White Mountain Conservation League, and the National Wildlife Federation. These complaints ranged from accusations of not following laws such as the Endangered Species Act, to trying to block the release of the Mexican Grey Wolf on the Forest, to attempting to destroy a land acquisition project by the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. He even sponsored a local radio broadcast where he harangued the environmentalists, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Another example of the leadership problem, is the Director of Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plants. He is seen by most biologists in the Region as lacking vision. He does not support the sensitive species program, hinders those working for him, and seems to always support continued livestock grazing regardless of its faults. He too, has been the target of numerous complaints, many from his own staff for creating a hostile working environment, especially female workers. He resists efforts to take part in proactive measures to recover rare species. He sees his role as a "team player" and a defender of the status quo. He sees his staffs as a support group for timber and range programs and criticizes them for trying to develop programs and projects to recover endangered species. In 1993 he hired an independent consultant to discover why the Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plant program was deteriorating. The consultant interviewed Forest Service employees, biologists from other state and federal agencies, and members of the environmental community. The report pointedly exposed his poor leadership skills and refusal to support protection of endangered species and habitats. Rather than changing management, he changed the report, rewriting it so as to cast a favorable view of himself. The original report, if still available, would provide you a good inside look at the problems plaguing wildlife management in the Southwest. I urge you to try to obtain it. Several years ago, the Deputy Forest Supervisor of the Coconino National Forest retired. Upon leaving, she wrote a letter the Regional Forester about this Director, documenting his inability to lead and the demeaning ways that he treats his staff, especially women. This letter was ignored. Four individuals on his staff, including myself, took early retirements because of this individual. We found him to be overbearing, lacking in leadership abilities and a major barrier to ecosystem restoration. I do not present these profiles lightly. I bring them to your attention to help to help you understand the root of the wildlife crisis in the Southwest. We have a leadership team which is not accountable for the conservation of public resources, including taxpayers dollars. They do not have a passion for the restoration of degraded ecosystems. They hinder rather than support good biologists. I know of many biologists and one deputy forest supervisor who were forced to leave the Forest Service, transfer, or resign because they spoke out on resource and leadership issues. I know of a Southwest Fisheries Biologist that is barred from working on some Forests and Regional Task Groups because he criticized the Regions leadership in regards to riparian degradation. I will be glad to furnish their names, if you would like. The point, is that transferring millions of dollars to fix the grazing program, establishing new management teams, etc. will not solve root problems as long a management continues to be more committed to logging and grazing that protecting species and watersheds. I would like to offer some suggestions that I think would help make positive changes in the Region: 1) Remove those line officers (including the Director of Fish, Wildlife, and Rare Plants and the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Supervisor) that demonstrate lack of leadership and unwillingness to manage resources for the public good instead of the financial benefit of the livestock industry. 2) Carefully replace these people with leaders sensitive to ALL the publics in the Region and to the unique resources that the southwestern National Forests have to offer. 3) Establish an independent scientific panel to assess the status of streams, riparian areas, and associated threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife. The team should also review Forest Service management of livestock grazing and make recommendations for policies which will end degradation and restore these areas. Since it is enormously costly to maintain grazing while ending its damaging effects (i.e. building riparian fences, pipelines, waters, etc.), the panel should also carefully consider the economic costs and benefits to the taxpayers. 4) Think about doing away with the "line and staff" organization. Successful private sector organizations such Saturn Motors have done this. More than reorganization is needed, however, a change in values is required. The Kaibab National Forest is studying a new and more effective organization style which they discussed with the Gore Company, makers of Gortex. They were told that no matter what kind of organization they come up with, it will not work as long as the Forest Service is out of touch with their markets- the changing American the public. In fact, the Gore people said that if their company was as out of touch with their customers as the Forest Service, they'd be out of business! A decentralized line and staff organization allows for many little fiefdoms bossed by many inept leaders. 5) Develop active partnerships between the Forest Service and environmental groups, and for God's sake, please ask the Director of Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plants to stop calling them "the enemy". 6) Consider working with Congress to modify the Multiple-Use Act to an Appropriate-Use Act. The Multiple-Use Act is too often interpreted to mean ALL uses coming from the same acre of land. This is why we're in trouble on our riparian areas. 7) Rather than just mitigating the losses of rare species from grazing and timber management activities, begin restoring habitats to recover and delist species. This is what our Forest Service Manual directs us to do! I hope you will take this letter as an honest, if painful, attempt to relay my experiences and observations while working in this Region. The Southwest has many unique resources and a public that want us to change the way we have traditionally done business. They want us to move from the dominance of timber and livestock production to recreation, wildlife, fish, recovery of rare species and water. It will be challenging, I know, to deal with the current leadership, but if the Forest Service is to live up to its own mission in this Region, we must change. Chief Dombeck, I would appreciate hearing back from you as to your views as to how to best turn the Southwestern Region around. Sincerely,
Leon Fager
Douglas K. Barber
The Honorable Pete V Domenici Dear Senator Domenici, I would like to begin this letter by saying what a fine job you are doing representing the people of New Mexico and the nation in the Senate. Your early stand on the need to balance the budget was absolutely essential to get the dialogue started. Your resistance to tax cut proposals was also totally appropriate. Nobody who has studied the issue believes we can balance the budget and cut taxes at the same time. Rather, what we need to do is start running a budget surplus to pay down the enormous debt. The debt has been created by our generation for our generation's benefit. Let's start paying our way for a change and quit passing the bill on to our children. With that introduction in mind, please consider the following discussion about your proposed grazing reform bill. I believe it is a glaring inconsistency in your otherwise excellent record. I can't believe that if you understood the issue you would continue to push your proposed "reform" of public land grazing. So, this is my attempt to enlighten you. For background, I retired from the U.S. Forest Service about a year ago, after serving as the Deputy Forest Supervisor of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in Arizona for 5 years, and briefly in the Albuquerque Regional Office. I took an early retirement in part because I'd become totally frustrated with the Forest Service's inability to deal appropriately with this issue. I have been convinced for a number of years that the existing term grazing permit system is broken beyond repair. It is a relic of the early part of this century, when it was used by the Forest Service to get control of rampant grazing on the newly-created National Forests. The agency has used it ever since to try to improve management. However, their efforts investments in improved management have always fought the law of diminishing returns, and the break-even point was passed long ago. What we have is a comatose patient on life support and it's time to turn the machine off. The enclosed March 9, 1996 front page article in the Arizona Republic gives an excellent description of grazing's environmental toll. There is no question that grazing has damaged Southwestern streams and riparian habitat. The Forest Service recognizes that, but they can't seem to realize that managing it better costs too much and leads to marginal solutions. For legal, political and agency policy reasons, they seem incapable of doing the right thing, which is often to eliminate it. To explain why, I'll use a typical problem from the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. The figures I cite are from memory, and may not be exactly right, but they're close enough to illustrate the point. There is an allotment near Alpine that permitted 372 head of cattle for 5 months of the year. There are three Apache Trout streams on the allotment that are in a badly degraded condition and, since the Apache Trout is a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act, we had to do something. We worked with the rancher and the Arizona Game and Fish Department for three years in an attempt to reach a compromise solution. Eventually, the decision was made, after insistence by the Fish and Wildlife Service, to fence the cattle out of the trout streams. Arizona Game and Fish even agreed to pay the $100,000 cost of the fences so we'd get on with it. The fences are now in place, and the streams are on the way to recovery. Did we solve the problem? Yes, but was it the most effective way? Did we build the fences to protect the streams, or to protect the cows? After all, if the cows weren't there, the fences wouldn't have been needed. Consider the benefits and the costs to the public. The 372 head of cattle for 5 moths will generate $2500/year in fees at the current rate of $1.35 per animal month. But the taxpayers don't get that much. Half of the fees go back into range improvements that also wouldn't be needed if the cows weren't there. Then, there's the Forest Service's cost of managing the allotment. If you include routine inspections and the hundreds of hours that have been spent the past few years working on new management plans, the taxpayers are taking a tremendous beating . For their trouble, they get an additional20 miles of fence which hampers their access to streams, and continued use of the created "riparian pastures" by cattle. Although this use will be at a reduced level, it will make recovery slower. The alternative of removing the cows, on the other hand, would have avoided the additional fences, eliminated both the investment and recurring management costs, and restored the streams as quickly as possible. Fencing streams so the cows can remain on the National Forest is simply not a good investment. And the situation is getting worse. This year, the Apache-Sitgreaves is spending an additional $250,000 fencing Apache Trout streams across the high country. During the analysis for this project, the Forest Service steadfastly refused to seriously consider removing the cattle, even though a defensible economic analysis would have pointed to that alternative as the most preferred. It would also have been the most preferred environmentally. But, because grazing is a part of the Forest Service's multiple use mission, the agency has the mindset that if a piece of land can be grazed, it must be grazed. It's as if the cows have an inalienable right to be there. So, the taxpayers continue to spend far more than we take in every year to manage the grazing program, and then spend a small fortune to mitigate the damage caused by that program. You, and many other supporters of the grazing industry, have stated that you are doing so to preserve "the public land rancher's way of life." Why is that way of life worth preserving, and at what cost? Even ignoring the environmental damage grazing causes, the public cost is enormous. Add to the costs I've already cited the public cost of access to remote ranches and maintenance of thousands of miles of fences and other "improvements" that wouldn't be needed without the rancher's "way of life." The term "welfare ranchers" is really untrue, but not for the reasons ranchers would like us to believe. Welfare would be far less expensive. And in today's economy, when hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs every year due to rapid economic change, why should a handful of public land ranchers be exempt from economic reality? My experience tells me that preserving public land grazing is not in the public interest. Less than 5% of the beef in this country comes from public lands. Most public land ranchers are either barely hanging on, or are wealthy from other sources. Yet in either case, they hang onto their permits with fierce determination. This is because the permits have acquired a "blue sky" value based upon the expected future cash flow from the subsidy I've described. Even though the Forest Service has consistently stressed that a grazing permit is a privilege and not a right, they have also consistently renewed the permits when the term expires, and transferred them from the seller to the buyer when a ranch is sold. Buyers pay sellers (not the taxpayers) up to $500 per permitted animal-month to acquire that privilege. Permit holders fight whenever the Forest Service proposes to reduce cattle numbers, because that means a loss of value in their permits. This is why I say the existing permit system is flawed beyond repair, and needs to be eliminated. The value of the public's grazing subsidy is being bought and sold by private parties, and the public is receiving no benefit. The system is unfair since only those wealthy enough to buy a permit have an opportunity to participate. More important, it is almost impossible for the Forest Service to significantly reduce permitted livestock, even when there is overwhelming environmental evidence that reductions are needed, under the existing permit system. Your proposed grazing "reform" bill exacerbates this problem by making it even more difficult for the public land agencies to make needed permit changes. What we need to do is let current permit-holders know that their permits will not be renewed at the end of the current terms. In its place, I propose a system where the grazing privilege is put up for bid for a five year term. Without the existing web of term permits that covers virtually every acre of public land in the Southwest, the land management agencies could rest degraded areas as needed and reevaluate conditions every five years. Those areas that were in good condition could be grazed by ranchers who won that privilege after fair competition. If the bid did not exceed the cost of managing an allotment, it would not be grazed. If this system were implemented, the public would receive a fair return from their public land while seeing a dramatic improvement in its condition. Please consider these comment carefully as you decide how to proceed with the grazing issue. As I states at the beginning of this letter, your proposal is totally inconsistent with your attempts to eliminate waste in the federal budget. Your proposal will also interfere with the public land management agencies attempts to deal with significant environmental damage caused by grazing. It reinforces the rancher's "right" to graze public lands at the time when that "right" needs to be eliminated for good. Douglas K. Barber
cc Senator Jeff Bingaman |
